3 costs and expenses arising from processing the case in the domestic jurisdiction and before the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. II JURISDICTION 5. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case in the terms of Articles 62 and 63(1) of the American Convention, because Colombia has been a State Party to the Convention since July 31, 1973, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION a. Processing of case 12,050 (La Granja) 6. On July 14, 1998, the Inter-American Commission received a petition submitted by the Grupo Interdisciplinario por los Derechos Humanos (hereinafter “GIDH”) and the Comisión Colombiana de Juristas (hereinafter “CCJ” and, when referring to both organizations, “the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin” or “the representatives”) against the State for facts that allegedly took taken place in La Granja. On September 9, 1998, the Commission, in accordance with its Rules of Procedure, opened case file No. 12,050 and requested the State to provide the pertinent information. 7. On October 2, 2000, the Commission adopted report No. 57/00, declaring the case admissible. On October 23, 2000, the Commission made itself available to the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement. b. Processing of case 12,226 (El Aro) 8. On March 3, 2000, the Inter-American Commission received a petition submitted by the representatives against the State for the facts that allegedly occurred in El Aro. On April 11, 2000, the Commission, in accordance with its Rules of Procedure, opened case file No. 12,226 and requested the State to provide the pertinent information. 9. On October 10, 2001, the Commission adopted report No. 75/01, declaring the case admissible. On November 14, 2001, the Commission made itself available to the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement. c. Joinder of cases 12,050 (La Granja) and 12,226 (El Aro) 10. Since the petitioners in cases 12,050 and 12,266 were identical, and also the context of the facts denounced in both cases, the sequential relationship of the reported violations, and their impact in the two districts of the Municipality of Ituango in the Department of Antioquia, the Commission proceeded to joinder the cases in order to take a decision on merits. 11. On March 11, 2004, given that a friendly settlement could not be reached in these cases, the Commission, pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention, adopted joint Report No. 23/04, in which it stated that the Colombian State was responsible for violating the rights embodied in the following articles of the Convention: